A couple of points ring out from your response (here)
I will quickly address a couple things before moving forward. First, as exemplified in your harping on my misuse of the word window, even if we accept your "Genesis 6:16: "Build a tshohar," which is an opening for a light source." You offer no analysis of how this opening would be sufficient for ventilation (Woodmoreappe himself said the animals produced between 6 and 12 tons of moisture in exhale. In 40 days of rain, 100% humidity, and no fans, where did this moisture go? I won't add exhale tonnage in to my calculations below, in any event). This is, sadly, something of a M.O. in your posts. I would hope you can enter a response to what follows with analysis and not merely saying "There was a opening for light" leaving the implied and unsupported assertion that it was sufficient to the task of ventilation. I implore you, support it. How big would the Tshohar be? Where do you get the dimensions? How would this be sufficient to ventilate the ark? And so on. That way, we can talk about facts.
Posting a picture of the "Noah's ark museum" establishes nothing. I am certain that my posting a picture of The UFO Museum in Roswell does not convince you that there is alien life out there, and life advanced enough that it has visited Earth.
Actually, this one is in accord with the first paragraph, but your objection to my rain tabulations is little more than offering doubt. You do not offer any counter argument. While the rain is beyond the scope of this thread, here I ask that rather than poke holes and run, offer explanations and more importantly, analysis. Demonstrate.
OK.... On to the meat of what I wanted to do here........
It is clear from your response that you're unsatisfied with the research I did to come up with the figures I used to offer up the analysis I did. You mentioned, for example, a suspicion that I picked the amount an elephant eats for some self serving purpose. I assure you I did not. But, here, I've decided to not even bother trying to come up with my own numbers. Instead, I am going to defer to the work of John Woodmorappe, the Creationist who's ideas I've come to realize your theory originates.
That said, I do not own Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study and have to rely on things I've been able to glean from the internet. I understand that I am placing a fair degree of trust in the words of others on this, and I welcome you - if you have his book - to correct the numbers I use and attribute to him. I will always effort to cite to where I got my information attributed to Woodmorappe. But, again, I'm simply going to be using the numbers, and I'm not particularly interested in the theories advanced by other's on Woodmorappe's work.
First - the dimensions we both agree on - it was 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. It thus has a volume of 1,518,750 cubic feet. It therefore had a displacement of 1,518,750 divided by 100 = 15,187.5 tons. (tonnage calculations) Can we agree that if we put more tonnage in the boat than 15,187.5 tons, it cannot stay afloat? If we cannot agree on this, please explain to me why.
Which brings up a quick side point. On the other thread, you objected to my link of a much bigger ship noting that a wooden ship would be more buoyant. Maybe, and I won't do the buoyancy calculations (feel free). But, we do agree that the Ark was a wooden ship.According to the research I have done, there appears to be an upper limit on the length of wooden ships, which is somewhere around 300 - 350 feet. Of course, this problem is a big reason why the naval industry turned away from wood and towards metals back in the 1850s. An example of a long wooden ship - the U.S.S. Wyoming which measured 329 feet in overall length. It was not pure wood, as it had diagonal iron strapping for support. It also leaked very badly requiring constant pumping. (Problematic for the Ark, no doubt) It was declared not seaworthy and too long for wood construction. The ark is over 100 feet longer.A starting point for long wooden ship research In this regard, wood is not helping your cause, LV.
But, back to the larger point...
15,187.5 tons of space is available on the Ark before it sinks. Let's first consider the weight of the creatures aboard themselves. While we can argue about what "Kind" means, we'll use Woodmorappe's figure, he writes (as you yourself noted):
16,000 x 763 = 12,208,000 lbs 12,208,000 pounds divided by 2000 (pounds per ton) = 6,104 tons.
15,187.5 - 6,140 = 9,047.5 tons left for food to feed these beasts. I found that Woodmorappe claims each beast ate 1/30th of its body weight per day. Thus - 6,104 divided by 30 = 203.5 tons per day for the entire boat to be fed. Now, we multiply that number by the number of days (371) Woodmorappe says is the number of days we need to feed them. 371 x 203.5 Tons = 75,498.5 Tons for the journey.
Lets see what we have now. A tonnage capacity of 15,187.5
(Less) Biomass weight = 6,140
(Less) Food stores weight = 75,498.5
Equals -66,451 Tons. Well, The Ark is sunk, and we haven't even addressed fresh water yet. Likewise, we haven't considered that the Earth was destroyed of all life, and these creatures - once offloaded, would not have anything to eat until the Earth repopulated itself with plants, thus Noah would have needed even more food with him.
Now, then... Let's assume that the craft, despite the fact that it sunk some 66,000 tons ago, has not sunk or owing to it's wooden construction and length in excess of the apparent upper limit, not foundered. You claim that 8 people were responsible for feeding and dealing with the excrement of 16,000 animals.
Feed 1 time a day. Poop or pee 3 times a day. Fair? Peeing is important, because if it's not also thrown over board, well... you get one foul mess down below. While I have seen some suggestion that gravity got rid of the pee, I fail to understand how the bottom tier would enjoy the luxury of gravity when it was below the waterline. Opening a hole surely would have caused the Ark to sink, even if it did not on account of weight problems.
But.. what the hell... We'll call it twice a day, and we'll pretend that the pooping and peeing ads no weight at all, that is - it is dealt with immediately. 16,000 x 3 times tended to (to feed, and deal with excrement) = 48,000 times a day. Divide that by 8 people doing the work = 6000 episodes of animal care per day per person. Divide by 24 hours a day, and that's 250 times per hour. 250, a little over 4 times per minute. And that's assuming that none of the humans, Noah and his family, slept one wink for about a year. Instead, they were dealing with an animal ever 15 seconds. Admittedly, they may not have had to deal with each animal individually. Likewise, however, it takes more than 15 seconds to take a bucket of shit from the lowest level up to the deck to throw over board. Likewise, the 8 individuals also themselves need time to eat and shit, which typically takes longer than 15 seconds per episode.
That pretty much ends my post, LV. I hope you are willing to offer a counter analysis rather than spend time simply poking holes in my offer while making no effort on your own to explain a better rationale.
If you are unsatisfied with the numbers I've chosen and attributed to Woodmorappe, please advise, and give me numbers you accept. I will say, I believe in using Woodmorappe's numbers I have already conceded a great deal since I do not believe 16,000 animals can be reasonably expected given the rest of your theory as it relates to current diversity under time constraints which you leave undefined, but surely less than the estimated 4.6 Billion years the Earth has been here.
I will quickly address a couple things before moving forward. First, as exemplified in your harping on my misuse of the word window, even if we accept your "Genesis 6:16: "Build a tshohar," which is an opening for a light source." You offer no analysis of how this opening would be sufficient for ventilation (Woodmoreappe himself said the animals produced between 6 and 12 tons of moisture in exhale. In 40 days of rain, 100% humidity, and no fans, where did this moisture go? I won't add exhale tonnage in to my calculations below, in any event). This is, sadly, something of a M.O. in your posts. I would hope you can enter a response to what follows with analysis and not merely saying "There was a opening for light" leaving the implied and unsupported assertion that it was sufficient to the task of ventilation. I implore you, support it. How big would the Tshohar be? Where do you get the dimensions? How would this be sufficient to ventilate the ark? And so on. That way, we can talk about facts.
Posting a picture of the "Noah's ark museum" establishes nothing. I am certain that my posting a picture of The UFO Museum in Roswell does not convince you that there is alien life out there, and life advanced enough that it has visited Earth.
Actually, this one is in accord with the first paragraph, but your objection to my rain tabulations is little more than offering doubt. You do not offer any counter argument. While the rain is beyond the scope of this thread, here I ask that rather than poke holes and run, offer explanations and more importantly, analysis. Demonstrate.
OK.... On to the meat of what I wanted to do here........
It is clear from your response that you're unsatisfied with the research I did to come up with the figures I used to offer up the analysis I did. You mentioned, for example, a suspicion that I picked the amount an elephant eats for some self serving purpose. I assure you I did not. But, here, I've decided to not even bother trying to come up with my own numbers. Instead, I am going to defer to the work of John Woodmorappe, the Creationist who's ideas I've come to realize your theory originates.
That said, I do not own Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study and have to rely on things I've been able to glean from the internet. I understand that I am placing a fair degree of trust in the words of others on this, and I welcome you - if you have his book - to correct the numbers I use and attribute to him. I will always effort to cite to where I got my information attributed to Woodmorappe. But, again, I'm simply going to be using the numbers, and I'm not particularly interested in the theories advanced by other's on Woodmorappe's work.
First - the dimensions we both agree on - it was 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. It thus has a volume of 1,518,750 cubic feet. It therefore had a displacement of 1,518,750 divided by 100 = 15,187.5 tons. (tonnage calculations) Can we agree that if we put more tonnage in the boat than 15,187.5 tons, it cannot stay afloat? If we cannot agree on this, please explain to me why.
Which brings up a quick side point. On the other thread, you objected to my link of a much bigger ship noting that a wooden ship would be more buoyant. Maybe, and I won't do the buoyancy calculations (feel free). But, we do agree that the Ark was a wooden ship.According to the research I have done, there appears to be an upper limit on the length of wooden ships, which is somewhere around 300 - 350 feet. Of course, this problem is a big reason why the naval industry turned away from wood and towards metals back in the 1850s. An example of a long wooden ship - the U.S.S. Wyoming which measured 329 feet in overall length. It was not pure wood, as it had diagonal iron strapping for support. It also leaked very badly requiring constant pumping. (Problematic for the Ark, no doubt) It was declared not seaworthy and too long for wood construction. The ark is over 100 feet longer.A starting point for long wooden ship research In this regard, wood is not helping your cause, LV.
But, back to the larger point...
15,187.5 tons of space is available on the Ark before it sinks. Let's first consider the weight of the creatures aboard themselves. While we can argue about what "Kind" means, we'll use Woodmorappe's figure, he writes (as you yourself noted):
Link While the median animal may have been a rat sized thing, we should be much more concerned with the average weight. An explanation of why this is so is also provided in the Link (Eample: median of 3 things - consider things which weight 1oz, 2oz, and 100 Tons.. the median = 2oz... If you have a vessel that can carry 50 tons, relying on the median to do your calculation of if you'll float will result in failure). The average weight of the animals aboard is 763 pounds, according to Woodmorappe.Woodmorappe said:
16,000 x 763 = 12,208,000 lbs 12,208,000 pounds divided by 2000 (pounds per ton) = 6,104 tons.
15,187.5 - 6,140 = 9,047.5 tons left for food to feed these beasts. I found that Woodmorappe claims each beast ate 1/30th of its body weight per day. Thus - 6,104 divided by 30 = 203.5 tons per day for the entire boat to be fed. Now, we multiply that number by the number of days (371) Woodmorappe says is the number of days we need to feed them. 371 x 203.5 Tons = 75,498.5 Tons for the journey.
Lets see what we have now. A tonnage capacity of 15,187.5
(Less) Biomass weight = 6,140
(Less) Food stores weight = 75,498.5
Equals -66,451 Tons. Well, The Ark is sunk, and we haven't even addressed fresh water yet. Likewise, we haven't considered that the Earth was destroyed of all life, and these creatures - once offloaded, would not have anything to eat until the Earth repopulated itself with plants, thus Noah would have needed even more food with him.
Now, then... Let's assume that the craft, despite the fact that it sunk some 66,000 tons ago, has not sunk or owing to it's wooden construction and length in excess of the apparent upper limit, not foundered. You claim that 8 people were responsible for feeding and dealing with the excrement of 16,000 animals.
Feed 1 time a day. Poop or pee 3 times a day. Fair? Peeing is important, because if it's not also thrown over board, well... you get one foul mess down below. While I have seen some suggestion that gravity got rid of the pee, I fail to understand how the bottom tier would enjoy the luxury of gravity when it was below the waterline. Opening a hole surely would have caused the Ark to sink, even if it did not on account of weight problems.
But.. what the hell... We'll call it twice a day, and we'll pretend that the pooping and peeing ads no weight at all, that is - it is dealt with immediately. 16,000 x 3 times tended to (to feed, and deal with excrement) = 48,000 times a day. Divide that by 8 people doing the work = 6000 episodes of animal care per day per person. Divide by 24 hours a day, and that's 250 times per hour. 250, a little over 4 times per minute. And that's assuming that none of the humans, Noah and his family, slept one wink for about a year. Instead, they were dealing with an animal ever 15 seconds. Admittedly, they may not have had to deal with each animal individually. Likewise, however, it takes more than 15 seconds to take a bucket of shit from the lowest level up to the deck to throw over board. Likewise, the 8 individuals also themselves need time to eat and shit, which typically takes longer than 15 seconds per episode.
That pretty much ends my post, LV. I hope you are willing to offer a counter analysis rather than spend time simply poking holes in my offer while making no effort on your own to explain a better rationale.
If you are unsatisfied with the numbers I've chosen and attributed to Woodmorappe, please advise, and give me numbers you accept. I will say, I believe in using Woodmorappe's numbers I have already conceded a great deal since I do not believe 16,000 animals can be reasonably expected given the rest of your theory as it relates to current diversity under time constraints which you leave undefined, but surely less than the estimated 4.6 Billion years the Earth has been here.
Last edited:
